SLT ruse

As a hardworking taxpayer and regular voter who loves living in Lawrence (since 1988), I want to express my grateful appreciation to Mayor Mike Amyx and City Commissioner Sue Hack for their support for a 32nd Street route for the South Lawrence Trafficway.

On a sharply divided City Commission, Mayor Amyx and Commissioner Hack are standing up for hardworking taxpayers against special interests represented by commissioners Boog Highberger, Mike Rundle and David Schauner. The ruse that "the Lawrence community considers the wetland a local natural treasure" is so absurd that it might be dismissed as laughable, if it were not so serious a breach of public trust in our elected officials.

Please urge our mayor and city commissioners to vigorously oppose those who stand behind a false environmental banner to advance their own special interests. Greedy machine politics have no place in Lawrence.

More like this story on LJWorld.com

Comments

Have you ever heard of Stephens Real Estate, Mc Grew Real Estate, Douglas County Development Inc. of which Comm. Bob Johnson was a founder or First Management?

According to working real estate agents their companies have a special interest aka land along the route. Of course relocating the route to a more practical location which deals with future growth will not curtail development of property currently owned along the way.

"the Lawrence community considers the wetland a local natural treasure" is so absurd

Now this is the line that attracts my attention, because there WAS NO WETLANDS when I remember that area. Not being a frequent visitor to Lawrence, I was surprised to see a 'swamp' and 'tree sprouts' growing in the fields and the road ditches full of water. Yep, it was 'man-made' beyond what nature originally developed.

When more than one option exists for building a roadway
why not remain open enough to accept that. A SOR route is acceptable to proponents of a wetlands route for a second roadway so why not build one that meets the needs of today and in the future instead of blowing tax dollars on two expensive roadways?

Why not request a toll road in order that those who do not need a bypass do not have to pay for it?

It should not be long from now that county commissioners will want more of OUR tax dollars to begin making major improvements to county roads over and above a bypass to accomodate all of the new and future residents. It seems to me that improvements of county roads including some that lead directly into JOCO could relieve much traffic congestion. I contend the resistence to this concept is to drive the need for a bypass. Yes new expensive county road improvements will be knocking on our tax dollar doors way too soon.

Why not agree on a south-of-the-river bypass and forget the obsolete trafficway concept? Spend tax dollars on a more practical application. Introduce appropriate plans designed to meet future needs, a plan that could bring Johnson, Douglas and Leavenworth counties together as partners. This requires bridges across the river. All three counties would benefit, thus would assist funding the project. Then, turn the entire road project over to the Kansas Turnpike Authority.

A south-of-the-river route would join County Road 1057 and Kansas Highway 10 to carry traffic north to Interstate 70 by way of I-70 connectors meeting a Tonganoxie turnpike interchange.

the HASKELL wetlands are natural. The wetlands were destroyed in the early 1900's by WHITE
BIA officials trying to teach "FARMING?" to people that gave the Pilgrims (No pun intended) food when they were too stupid to bring crops with them in the 1620's.
The late Ivan Boyd and his son Roger worked on restoring what had been previously done in the name
of WHITE PROGESS? the destruction of a natural habitat.
People these days have a short memory and the luxury
of ignorance. The Boyds didn't "MAKE" the wetlands,
they simply restored the ecological damages that their
fellow white men had done in the early 1900's.

To refute Pilgrim's point, the Boyds were able to do this
after Baker University utilized the Indian School Surplus
lands Act of 1962, or title 25, Chapter 7, Section 293a.
Only public institutions were eligible for such lands.
Baker is private. I attended the school. Baker also
received 572.68 acres of land, or 11 and 1/4 times
the amount allowed by law, (read above law at findlaw).
If the receiver of the lands in question did not live up
to the promises made upon land transfer, the land would
revert back to it's original owner, the BIA and Haskell.
To uninformed people, go ahead and hate the facts,
your politicians have spent a long time denying them.
Yet we stop you from acting irresponsible at our cost.
Somebody has to be responsible, and you all aren't.